I don't have a clear position here, but why not? Shareholders can do their due diligence after all. If you are not directly involved in the decision making that

I don't have a clear position here, but why not? Shareholders can do their due diligence after all. If you are not directly involved in the decision making that caused suffering to occur then you perhaps incur monetary losses (either through insuring yourself or paying fines). This will of course, change the risk equation. Previously potentially profitable investments suddenly become non-viable because when you factor in insurance costs / possible fines, you can think more than once about funding endeavors by people which might be crooks. If you were directly responsible for the decision making that caused predictable suffering, you can be criminally liable. You can go to jail. What is the problem with that?